Did Donald Trump Collaborate with Vladimir Putin

FBI Directory Comey had this information in August 2016 and sat on it. Mother Jones reported on it in October 2016. BuzzFeed just reported the memos behind the breaking news that was broken today, 1/10/16, that Putin hacked and spied on Donald Trump and hacked the RNC - something Trump angry twitter response hot disputes. He even says he forgot he was briefed on it a few days ago.

Comey said hackers gained several state-level campaigns -- and that there was “limited penetration” of old domains of the Republican National Committee. The RNC databases that were affected are not currently in use, he said.

Comey added that there is no evidence the Republican presidential campaigns, including that of President-elect Donald Drumpf, were directly targeted.

So, once again, you appear to be using bad information in order to come to a bad conclusion.

No, I am using some of the information that intel chiefs briefed Obama and #NoMandateTrump on.

In any case, I have a hard time believing anything Comey says regarding this election; he has played his part in Clinton's loss by saying things he shouldn't be saying while not saying things that hurt Trump, such as the hacking allegations which he knew about in August 2016.

Wait. Are you seriously holding Comey to the fire because he didn't report any and all allegations he heard? What - you wanted to send in a few faux claims just to provide fodder for the Democrats when the head of the FBI reports that they've heard ridiculous claims and feel obligated to report them to the media without investigation?

Comey hurt himself pretty badly with that silly statement that Clinton should not be prosecuted for her known crimes, but at least he keeps FBI information within the FBI until facts are actually known.

"The Kremlins cultivation operation on Trump also had compromised him offering him various lucrative real estate development business in Russia especially in relation to the 2018 World Cup Soccer tournament.However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP has not taken up any of these."

Sounds pretty honorable, and just what we would like to see. Wonder why it is being spun into something evil rather than, unlike the various "pay for play" schemes known to have existed, pointing out that our President Elect has kept his out of the muck?

Did you miss part of the quotation? "However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP has not taken up any of these." Doesn't matter, though, does it? We'll still demonize him because...because he has funny hair?

Or because he chooses cabinet from business rather than the cesspool on capital hill. An unforgivable sin to those that deify that labyrinth of sin and evil. We'll even make claims that they bought those positions, though we have exactly zero evidence to back the claim. Anyone connected with Trump is to be demonized, aren't they, and if we can't find a reason we'll make one up.

(It's important to note that Trump was NOT briefed on these libelous claims, and that no one is even investigating them. There is nothing to investigate.)

I predicted that there would be "leaks" about Trump from the intelligence community. Just didn't expect it so soon. I predict this will not be the last, and will not be the most politically damaging. He made a grave mistake in publicly discrediting his intelligence agencies. I strongly suspect this is a warning shot from them. I hope he ignores it, and continues to make an enemy out of people whose trade is uncovering secrets. His pal Comey won't be able to save him if he does.

The reason the intel community (other than #NoMandateTrump's friend, Director Comey) to the report seriously is that it came from a Known Credible Source. Yes, it is currently unverified, but they trust the source.

You got trolled. 4Chan took the credit for writing the hoax. Buzzfeed published the fake news and CNN pushed it. The Songbird of Saigon - John McCain (idiot) admitted he handed the pages over to the FBI hacks. They didn't bother to check the facts? They have been discredited so badly once again, and you fell for the hoax. None of it is true.

It was funny to watch Time Warner's stocks take a good tumble today after Trump called CNN Fake News and Buzzfeed garbage at his press conference. That's how powerful his voice is.

Pushing this kind of garbage in the forms puts people right up there with Fake News sites that are imploding because of their bias and bs. But, we can expect even worse fake news in the next nine days as they try to save their crumbling empires. They cannot maintain this and last, IMHO.

Hello again Colorfulone, I think you are right, someone is going to end up with egg on their face.

First it was unverified but credible news, (Buzzfeed, CNN), then it was fake news - a 4Chan hoax, (multiple message boards, forums, reddits, etc.), now it appears the 4Chan hoax story might not be credible, so it might be back to unverified news again.

I like what Lou Dobbs quotes about the liberal's false statements of Senator Sessions, its fitting with this fake news as well.

“‘As we stated in our story, there is a serious reason to doubt these allegations. We’ve been chasing specific claims in this document for weeks and will continue to do so.’ So what they’re acknowledging is they don’t know what the hell they know, they don’t know anything and they haven’t got facts to support anything that they’re publishing, which are, well they don’t really rise to the level of allegations. They’re more like conjurings.”

Conjurings, is a good word to use for cockroaches. I know how you love my memes. Anytime you can fit "cockroaches" in, your doing good.

A major issue TODAY in the acceptance or not of Trumps political popularity of the day is this : There is a huge difference in personal popularity and political ability ! Trump -could perform his job flawlessly and yet still "fail " because of his lack of personal Charisma . Obama - a charismatic and popular figure but a political failure.

You are grossly confusing personal popularity to political accomplishment , Presidential charisma isn't and shouldn't be the gauge of any accomplishment , although that is exactly the way the left looks at Obama's legacy .

Accept the polls DO NOT reflect your theory. Questions on popularity often come out with different results than those on Jpb Approval. And overall Job Approval is frequently different from its parts like Healthcare, Economy, Foreign Affairs, and other areas.

Therefore, Presidential charisma Is Not a gauge of accomplishment. It just happens for Obama, the two measures are in sync.

For Trump, it is not. 41% Favorability; 48% think Trump will do a good job. (personally, I think that will be his highest numbers.).

If we've learned anything at all from polls, it is that political polls aren't worth the time to read them. Invariably spun and twisted to show exactly what the pollster wants to show they are worthless.

Example: is there a person in the country that thinks 80% of the population, in Dec. '08, thought Obama would do a good job? Someone outside of an asylum, that is? (Remember, the far left, radical liberals do NOT constitute 80% of the population.)

Thing is, the poll was right, his job approval rating is 60% which is much higher than most previous presidents.

Also, keep in mind, #NoMandateTrump himself didn't think he would win, so whatever you say about polls you are saying about Trump and his team.

Finally, remember the polls almost consistently showed a very tight race, within the margin of error; which makes them right as well. The outcome was a squeaker, electoral vote-wise, less than 100,000 (about 0.6%) gave him the win; which is what the polls were predicting.

Really? You actually believe that in Dec. 2008, that 80% of the American people approved of Obama and thought he would do a good job? I thought better of you.

Guess it depends on what you call "almost". Because an awful lot of them had it 2-1 or worse. Just like it depends on what you call a "squeaker" - 306-234 isn't much of a squeaker in my book but you are free to define it so if you wish.

I'm sorry for you. There hasn't been a president for many, many decades that had 80+% of the population thinking they would do a good job before they even entered office. Possibly Reagan, but I would doubt even that.

And absolutely, certainly not Obama. There are enough dyed in the wool racists in the country to make sure of that. KKK, skinheads and just plain old deep south racists.

No, Esoteric, polls today are not to be believed anymore. Not even when they agree with what you wish to promote.

And I am sorry for you in that you can't read the words that are written without changing the meaning.

I said Absolutely Nothing about "80+% of the population thinking they would do a good job"; the actual poll figure for Dec 1 - 2, 2008 was 79%. The same question about Trump on Jan 12 - 15, 2017, only 49% thought that. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/image … rump.2.pdf

What was 80+% was how the Ds felt about PBO's Favorability.

The ONLY thing not to be believed today is Donald J. Trump, given his proven record of making False statements of fact, a record he continued to maintain as of yesterday.

And, since I understand statistics and you don't, I know when to believe a poll and when not to.

Whups! You're right - the correct figure is 79%. That 79% of the population, in Dec. 2008, felt that Obama would do a good job.

And I stand by the statement that it is just another nonsense poll designed and conducted to convince people of something that is not true. It is not possible that 80% (or 79% to be exact) of the people at that point in history thought Obama would do well.

Personally, I would say that using your "intuition" to make conclusions about statistical figures is not actually "understanding" them. I would also say that you are one of the gullible, willing to accept anything the "experts" tell you that their polls show if it only agrees with what you want to hear.

(2008 election, Obama took 53% of the popular vote, including those that voted against McCain rather than for Obama. Yet somehow that number is almost instantly transmuted into 79% of the population thinking he would do a good job. Half the number voting McCain thinks Obama will do a good job plus 80% of the people that didn't vote at all (plus, of course, all Obama voters). And you are gullible enough to believe it).

What is your college degree in? One of mine is Statistics. What did (or do) you do for a living? One of my careers was 20+ years as an Air Force Cost and Economics Analyst, which applies practical statistics to real world problems. Being a good "Intuitor" is a requirement for being successful at that job, and I was successful.

Election results DO NOT equate to how people feel about how well the winner of an election will do. What 79% means is that many McCain supporters thought Obama will do a good job despite the fact that they thought McCain might do a better job. Do you see the difference yet?

What 79% means on that day is a lot of people had high hopes for Obama. Today's 49% for Trump means low expectations.

I won't bother getting into the meaning of the Difference between 79% and 49% for the same poll question taking at two different times for two different people using the same methodology.

Chemistry. With a minor (lacking 1 credit hour of being a second major) in math. Chemist. Not sure what that has to do with making up conclusions based on a poll, supported or not by the numbers, though. It DOES have something to do with an ability to "sense" a glitch, or wrongness, in a mathematical answer and look for reasons for it - something you don't seem inclined to do.

"Election results DO NOT equate to how people feel about how well the winner of an election will do. What 79% means is that many McCain supporters thought Obama will do a good job despite the fact that they thought McCain might do a better job."

Exactly what I said - that half of McCain voters thought Obama would do a good job. Along with 80% of those that didn't bother to vote. And you can believe that if you wish - I don't.

"What 79% means on that day is a lot of people had high hopes for Obama."

Not hopes - we all hope for a good job by the President. Or at least those with a modicum of intelligence do. What it says is that they think he WILL do a good job. And given the massive numbers of people that hated even the thought of Obama in the White House (shades of Clinton voters today!) that 79% is impossible to believe. Maybe only Democrats were polled, or urban dwellers. Only those with computers to answer with, or only those happy to paint a rosy picture. I'm sure you know and understand the possibilities of conducting a poll to produce any answer you want, and this is exactly such a case.

This is not about using a statistical analysis on poll numbers; it is about questioning the veracity of the poll itself. I have no doubt that any analysis of the numbers, neglecting to examine where those numbers came from, will produce that glorious 79%. As I pointed out, the polls taken during the 2016 election make it abundantly clear that polls can be made to show exactly what is wanted. Exactly what is wanted, and under rigid mathematical analysis!

You said: "Not sure what that has to do with making up conclusions based on a poll, supported or not by the numbers, though. It DOES have something to do with an ability to "sense" a glitch, or wrongness, in a mathematical answer and look for reasons for it - something you don't seem inclined to do." - So you are telling me I wasted a 20+ yr career doing exactly that?

"had high hopes" is a figure of speech; you are sharpshooting

You said: "And given the massive numbers of people that hated even the thought of Obama in the White House" - how about the "massive" number of people who voted for him ... TWICE!

You said: "Maybe only Democrats were polled, or urban dwellers. Only those with computers to answer with, or only those happy to paint a rosy picture. I'm sure you know and understand the possibilities of conducting a poll to produce any answer you want, and this is exactly such a case." - Why would you say that when you don't have a clue of how it works? Why do corporations, who can afford it; social scientist; obviously all politicians, their organizations, PACs, marketing companies; governments; etc, spend billions on such obviously poor methodologies? Oh, by the way, CNN/ORC doesn't use on-line polling on these types of polls.

Actually, CNN/ORC poll is one of the most highly respected organizations in the polling industry; (a worthless industry according to you).

All reliable polling organizations check every other polling organizations methodologies to see if they can catch them making errors. That is why all good polling companies give their methodologies along with the polling results; and when available, I look at them, not every time of course, but at least once per poll to understand how they do it.

You spent 20 years getting paid to do statistical analyses on flawed poll data? Don't know that I would brag about that...

""had high hopes" is a figure of speech; you are sharpshooting"

If you wish. I would have put it closer to expectations, with "hopes" being just that - a desire with no real expectation of it happening.

"Actually, CNN/ORC poll is one of the most highly respected organizations in the polling industry"

And their polls of the 2016 election were right on the button, correctly predicting election results. Right.

"All reliable polling organizations check every other polling organizations methodologies to see if they can catch them making errors."

Esoteric, you may have complete faith in political polls and the people taking them. I do not, and have even less after seeing what was coming out last year. Methodologies be dammed: all it takes is a little "typo" in actual data to produce whatever is wanted. Which you also know quite well, you just hide it behind that faith that someone paid to produce a particular result won't do it if it turns out to be wrong.

So , Rural America elected Trump , right ? How come in forty years of voting and living rurally , I have been polled maybe once in a general election ! Maybe all of these highly rated polling systems work well in Urban America only !

What does that effectively say about polls - the media bias - the present election results?

Why do you keep emphasizing how little you know or understand with condescending statements like "You spent 20 years getting paid to do statistical analyses on flawed poll data? Don't know that I would brag about that..." which are clearly childish.

"If you wish. I would have put it closer to expectations, with "hopes" being just that - a desire with no real expectation of it happening." is another example of childless sharpshooting.

As far as the Polls getting it right ... yeah they did. - The average of 3 polls just prior to the election Michigan had it has a tie; Trump won by 0.7% - The average of 4 polls just prior to the election Pennsylvania had it has a tie; Trump won by 0.7% - The average of 3 polls just prior to the election Wisconsin had Clinton ahead by 5; Trump won by 0.3% - The MI and PA polls showed a noticeable upturn for Trump right after FBI Dir Comey told Congress he was considering reopening Clinton's server investigation because of the FBI investigation into Congressman Weiner. Several days later Comey said he was wrong (sorry Clinton).

The fact that you choose to believe alt-Right Fake News is sad.

Your statement "Methodologies be damned" does say it all about you, facts don't matter, reality doesn't matter, if it is not Alt-Right, it is wrong/

No, it just points out that the spin you applied isn't really appropriate.

Instead of cherry picking three polls to exclaim about, how about looking at 100 of them? I trust you understand the difference, and understand as well how that question relates to the general topic here of how flawed political polls are.

Because those were the polls leading up to the election, obviously. I wish you knew more about polling, statistics, margin of errors, averages, standard deviations; it would help in conversing with you. Instead, you shoot from the hip and whatever the alt-Right Fake Media tells you.

I lived through the fear of nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and America. I remember practicing what to do in elementary school in case of an attack. I remember the television commercials advertising...

Here are the FACTS as we know them:Jan 27, 2017: Trump has dinner with Comey and, according to Comey, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath' but Comey only promised Trump honesty. Trump says he didn't but thought...

Is trump getting a taste of his own medicine?As bad as the fake news published lately by Buzzfeed and CNN, it is ironic how Trump now denounce this while during the primaries, he did the same thing to his opponents.I am...

After reading the Company Intel Report 2016/080 released by Buzzfeed, what is your opinion?So you read the /3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations. What is your opinion? Is the Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies...